UPDATE (6:13 PM): CNET had a good piece on whether the jury was really qualified to even understand this case. Given the quick verdict, either these guys should all be working for Google or they were too dull to understand all the nuances of what was going on. I’m going to vote for the latter (and I expect the lawyers for the losing party to think this too).

UPDATE (6:20 PM): Remember, earlier today a South Korean court ruled a pox on both the houses of Apple and Samsung. Again, a quick verdict does not suggest such balance from the California jury.

UPDATE (6:25 PM): From The Verge: “One of Apple’s legal team just showed up in a polo shirt. Looks like we’re not the only ones surprised to be here today.”

UPDATE (6:34 PM): Judge Lucy Koh has the verdict. She’s reading it… This particular update will contain no further information!

UPDATE (6:47 PM): From David Lat (via Gchat): “Congrats to the Morrison & Foerster and WilmerHale tag team representing Apple. As for Quinn Emanuel, counsel to Samsung, CHECK YOU NOTICE OF APPEAL. I’d expect Kathleen Sullivan or some other heavy hitter from Quinn to come in for this case.”

UPDATE (6:49 PM): Also from Lat: “Preserving victory on appeal? There’s an app for that — and it’s called the ‘substantial evidence’ standard of review (not a hard standard to meet).”

UPDATE (6:53 PM): Each additional answer on the verdict form seems to be worse than the last for Samsung. It’s looking like a massacre. Somewhere, Steve Jobs is saying, “Hey Samsung, tell me how my APPS taste.”

UPDATE (7:00 PM): From The Verge: “381 Not proven invalid. No across the board. Not a single one proven invalid by Samsung.” Which is not very good, in case you did not know.

UPDATE (7:04 PM): Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?

UPDATE (7:13 PM): From The Verge: “Suffice to say, Samsung’s legal team cannot be happy right now.” UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR.

UPDATE (7:17 PM): A commenter says: “Wonder what a contingency fee on a billion dollars looks like…” We don’t know that MoFo or WilmerHale took this case on contingency, whether there are success fees built into the engagement, or other aspects of the billing arrangements. But we suspect that the lawyers who worked on the case are all screaming into their phones “Siri, WHO IS THE FAIREST OF THEM ALL.”

UPDATE (7:19 PM): Lat points out that, for MoFo and WilmerHale, this is “well-timed for fall recruiting — law students love stuff like this,” namely, cases you can read about in the newspaper (and mention during callback interviews).

UPDATE (7:24 PM): And The Verge sums up today’s IP excitement: “Apple didn’t win everything — not by a long shot — but it won enough to make this a very important day.”

UPDATE (8:13 PM): The parties identified some inconsistencies in the verdict form, which Judge Koh has asked the jurors to fix. See my earlier comments about how fast this jury worked given the numerous complex issues before them. Maybe they worked too fast?

We’ll have more analysis in subsequent posts, now that the latest “trial of the century” has concluded. In the meantime, I’m going to wait for Apple to tell my iPad what we’ve won for staying true.

Sign up for the Above the Law newsletter

Litigation finance is a funding tool many companies are considering to help cover the fees and expenses related to major legal claims. We at Lake Whillans Litigation Finance have compiled a list of questions to help you determine if your client is a candidate for litigation finance.